Hello, all:
This is the first time I log on for what seems to be ages! I’ve received many comments on each and every post, which is good, but it also means that many of the blogs will be rewritten and updated to address further points that ex-Witnesses (that is, those whom have left the Christian Congregation) and critics alike allege. I’ll be taking my time on this as I’m in no rush; so you can expect sporadic updates here and there as time permits. I will give my best effort to make each and every post as exhaustive and comprehensive as possible, as I do not plan on rewriting every entry over and over again.
This blog started out with a purpose, namely, to refute Don Cameron’s misrepresentations and distortions of the history and teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society— The objective hasn’t changed. Thus you the reader can expect a thorough and exhaustive refutation of his book, chapter by chapter and even sentence by sentence if need be.
One thing that needs to be remember is that this blog isn’t for those whom don’t want an answer for the allegations by critics and opposers such as Cameron and his acquaintances, but for those whose heart is right and may have struggled because of distortions such as can be read in Cameron’s book. No way in the world am I going to convince apostates that Cameron’s wrong for they have already decided in their heart that he is right and I and others whom set out to defend the Society against Cameron’s points is wrong.
The only way to ‘set the record straight’ is to look at the evidence objectively and see where it leads. Does it lead to the conclusion that Cameron adopts in his book? Or does it lead to a conclusion that Cameron’s book is completely bogus and should reserve no place in anyones theological library?
Settingtherecordstraight's Blog 
STRS,
I agree when you said, “The only way to ‘set the record straight’ is to look at the evidence objectively and see where it leads.”
To be objective means to approach a subject “without bias or prejudice; detached.”
That’s difficult to do. It’s not easy to be without bias, especially when it comes to something as personal as one’s spiritual beliefs.
I’m sure that I was not completely without bias when I wrote “Captives of a Concept.” But I get the feeling that you and ThirdWitness were also not without bias when read it!
If during your upcoming updates and revisions your bias causes to to misrepresent what I believe and/or say I’ll let you know.
Don
STRS,
Something you may not have noticed is that I don’t try to prove that the 48 teachings I mention were not true.
The reason is because the Governing Body already acknowledges that they are not true by the fact they they no longer teach any of them.
What I DO try to show is how Jesus would have reacted to those teachings that were not true based on the Society’s interpretation of Matthew 24:45-47 as explained by former President Frederic Franz in his “God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached.”
I said it this way:
“The easy part about such an examination is that it isn’t necessary to try to prove that any of those 48 teachings mentioned in Chapter 3 were not true. The Governing Body already admits that they were not true.
“The difficult part is not just getting Jehovah’s Witnesses to notice the Society’s pre-1919 teachings that were not true. Many already know about some of them.
“The difficult part is getting them to look at those teachings today the same way Jesus would have looked at them in 1919.”
Today Witnesses look at all of the Society’s previous teachings with Proverbs 4:18 in mind. But when it comes to the Society’s claim to being Jehovah’s organization I feel they need to look at those teachings with the Society’s interpretation of Matthew 24:45-47 in mind’
When I looked at them that way I decided that the Society has never been Jehovah’s organization. Many others who have read the book have decided the same thing.
Don
STRS,
When it comes to the Society’s teachings that have not been true you usually refer to Daniel 12:10’s and Malachi 3:2,3’s ‘refinement’ process to explain them.
Recently you said, “THE BIBLE ANSWERS this objection (about the Society’s incorrect pre-1919 teachings) satisfactorily with the “refinement” prophecy (in Daniel and Malachi).”
One of the things your statement suggests to me that you don’t always notice the difference between THE BIBLE’S ANSWERS and THE SOCIETY’S ANSWERS.
In the case of Daniel and Malachi the Bible does not provide the answer about refining ‘the Watchtower’s former teachings that were not true.’ That answer comes from the Society’s INTERPRETATION of what Daniel and Malachi said.
In order to reflect this fact I would rewrite your statement as follows:
‘THE SOCIETY ANSWERS this objection satisfactorily with THEIR INTERPREATION of David’s and Malachi’s refinement prophecy.’
This does not necessarily mean that their interpretation is wrong. It just means that you are going by their interpretation of what David and Malachi said rather than what they actually said.
I always try to notice the difference between what the Bible SAYS and what I or someone else thinks it MEANS.
Don
STRS,
As you know, regarding the Society’s 1918-1919 examination, I have said that I do not believe they could have passed it.
You responded, “In Cameron’s case nobody could pass the examination because HE demands perfection and flawlessness.”
But I’m not the one who “demands perfection.” I got the 4 criteria that I used to judge the Society FROM THE SOCIETY. They are the same criteria that they use to judge everyone else.
And as you also know, Jesus said, “With what judgement you are judging, you will be judged.” – Matthew 7:2
As far as “demanding perfection” by saying that “the Society HAD to have been providing the right sort of food at the proper time” in order to pass Jesus’ exam, THAT’S THE CRITERIA PRESIDENT FREDERICK FRANZ SAID JESUS USED. – See “God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached.”
And so I too used that criteria to judge their 48 teachings mentioned in the book. None of them were “the right sort of food” or “the proper time” to be teaching them.
I feel that those teachings were serious enough to disqualify anyone connected with the Watchtower Society as a faithful or a discreet slave of Jesus Christ.
Don
STRS,
Once again you said, “(The Society) bases their teachings on the Bible.”
Not always. They didn’t base any of the 48 teachings I mention in the book on the Bible. They were all based on the Society’s “misunderstandings.”
You then quoted Jesus when he said, “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me.”
That’s what the Society said about the 48 teachings in my book. But none of them belonged to the One who sent Jesus.
You continued to quote where Jesus said, “If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality.”
You seem to be quoting Jesus to show that just as he didn’t speak of his own originality, so too, the Society doesn’t speak of its own originality either.
But although Jesus never spoke of his own originality, Russell and Rutherford often did.
Don
STRS,
RE: “The men hidden behind the various terms used for
God’s organization.”
Here is an example of what I feel demonstrates the above…
In the November 15, 2009 Watchtower the men of the Governing Body said the following:
“By word or action, may WE never challenge THE CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATION that Jehovah is using today (Num 16: 1-3). On the contrary, WE should cherish OUR privilege to cooperate with THE SLAVE CLASS.”
Again, this what the men of the Governing body SAY. And therefore this is what Jehovah’s Witnesses SEE. They see “the Channel of communication” and “the slave class.”
But that’s not what I see. I see the men hidden behind “the channel of communication” and “the slave class.” They show up with the following rendering when the proper pronouns are used…
“By word or action, may YOU never challenge US (the men of the Governing Body). On the contrary, YOU should cherish YOUR privilege to cooperate with US.”
I believe this is what the Governing Body’s above statement MEANS in actual practice. But I think that it is very possible that even these men don’t see themselves hidden behind the above terms.
Don
STRS,
Here is something I would like to clarify.
ThirdWitness has misunderstood what I have said about the Matthew 24:47 appointment. I have not said that it referred to when the Society was appointed to be Jesus’ FDS.
I expressed myself this way on page 20,
“If Jesus ACKNOWLEDGED (Note: I purposely avoided the word ‘appointed’) the Society as his ‘faithful and discreet slave organization’ and therefore appointed them “over all his earthly interests” in 1919 then there is at least a chance that they are still God’s organization today.”
This brings up something I’ve mentioned before. ThirdWitness has said that the Society would still be Jesus’ “faithful and discreet slave” EVEN IF THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED THE MATTHEW 24:47 APPOINTMENT.
But according to President Franz, Jesus would have acknowledged them as his “slave” ONLY IF THEY COULD PROVE THEY WERE HIS ‘SLAVE’ by passing his food-at-the-proper-time examination. If they had passed it then they would have received the above appointment.
In other words, if they had not received that appointment it would have been because they failed Jesus’ exam. And if they failed that exam it would have proved that the Society was not his Jesus’ FDS.
Again, I think ThirdWitness has missed the extremely important point.
Don
STRS,
You and ThirdWitness have said that Jesus originally appointed “the faithful and discreet slave” with its Governing Body in the 1st Century.
When you get a chance please explain when and how that “slave” ended up being Russell and his associates in the 18th Century.
I have wondered, since Nelson Barbour is the one who taught Russell about the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, does that mean that Barbour was a member of Jesus’ “slave class”?
Don
STRS,
It is interesting to me to see the DIFFERENT way you and I (and ThirdWitness) react to the SAME evidence. For example: The 48 pre-1919 teachings I mention in the book that the Society no longer teaches,
That evidence convinces you that “Christ is truly REFINING the Society.”
But that exact same evidence convinces me that “Christ is truly IGNORING the Society.” What makes the difference?
We answer this question differently too.
I feel the primary reason why we disagree about what the above evidence means is because I sincerely DON’T believe the Society is Jesus’ “slave” but you both sincerely DO.
But for some reason I get the strong impression that you and ThirdWitness truly believe the reason we disagree is because I am an insincere lying, deceitful, evil apostate servant of Satan the Devil whose purpose is to mislead Jehovah’s Witnesses in order to destroy their relationship with Jehovah and His Son.
I can only hope that someday you both will come to realize that whatever misleading information that has been going on has not been coming from me.
Don
STRS,
I assume that you don’t just automatically agree with everything ThirdWitness says without doing your own thinking based on your own research to make sure that his reasoning is sound, fair and reasonable.
For Example: The first teaching that I consider in the book is the one about the beginning of Jesus’ parousia in 1874. ThirdWitness freely acknowledges that Russell was mistaken about that date.
But from that point of agreement we then go off in different directions. I
As for me, I try to show several things that one ‘mistake’ means. One thing it means is that from 1879 to 1914 (35 years) Russell’s magazine was announcing that Jesus’ was present when he wasn’t. (“Herald of Christ’s Presence”) I then try to help the reader consider what Jesus would have thought about that mistake if he was looking at it to make that it was the right thing to be teaching and the proper time to be teaching it. Etc.
But as for ThirdWitness, he changes the subject from the beginning of Jesus’ parousia in 1874 to what the Society thought Jesus was going to do in 1914 (Jesus’ return in Kingdom power). There is no connection between these two different events. ThirdWitness then accuses me of deliberately lying and trying to deceive and mislead.
I have wondered if is possible that you too have noticed that ThirdWitness ‘is not playing fair’ about this matter.
Don
STRS,
I assume that you don’t just automatically agree with everything ThirdWitness says without doing your own thinking based on your own research to make sure that his reasoning is sound.
For Example: The first teaching I consider in the book is the one about the beginning of Jesus’ parousia in 1874. ThirdWitness freely acknowledges that Russell was mistaken about that date.
But from that one point of agreement we then go off in different directions. I
As for me, I try to show several things that that one ‘mistake’ means. For one thing it means is that from 1879 to 1914 (35 years) Russell’s magazine was announcing that Jesus’ was present when he wasn’t. (“Herald of Christ’s Presence”).
I then try to help the reader consider what Jesus would have thought about that mistake if he was looking at it to make that it was the right thing to be teaching and the proper time to be teaching it.
But as for ThirdWitness, he not only doesn’t comment about any of the negative consequences that sprung from announcing the wrong date for 35 years, he switches the subject from what Russell believed had happened (past tense) in 1874 to what he believed would happen (future tense) in 1914. And as I have said previously, those two events have nothing to do with each other.
I have tried to point this out to him but so far he simply (1) denies doing it, and (2) keeps on doing it, and then (3) accuses me of intentionally misleading, deceiving and misrepresenting what the Society used to teach about Jesus’ parousia..
I am wondering if you or any of your associates have noticed when ThirdWitness does the above ‘switching subjects.’ If so it might help him stop doing it if someone he respects would gently point this habit out to him. And that it would also help his credibility if he can stop doing it.
Don
STRS,
Correction:
In one of my letters I had asked you to explain how and/or when Russell and his associates became Jesus’ FDS “in the 18th century.” That should have been “the 19th century.”
Don
STRS,
In my book I reason why “the various terms used for ‘God’s organization’ refer to these men (of the Governing Body) who are hidden behind those terms.”
You said, “That is simply untrue and a blatant misrepresentation of Jehovah’s Witness beliefs.”
I did not say that my statement represents what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe. I try to show why this statement is the way it actually is with the Watchtower religion even though the Witnesses don’t realize it.
The fact that you haven’t figured this out yet doesn’t mean that I have misrepresented what you believe. But by accusing me of “blatant misrepresentation” of what the Witnesses believe, you are misrepresenting what I am saying in the book.
I hope your upcoming revisions will revise your above comment.
Don
STRS,
In the book I explain why I feel that Matthew 24:45-47 is the most important Scripture in Watchtower theology. But ThirdWitness disagrees. He said that if there is such a thing as “the most important teaching” it would more likely be that “Jehovah is God.”
On Topix he said, ““Right from the outset Don Cameron perpetrates a misleading falsehood. He is in error. The scripture at Matt 24:45-47 is NOT the most important teaching in JWs’ theology.”
In the footnote on page 17 I explain it this way…
“Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t think of Matthew 24:45-47 as the most important Scripture in their organization’s theology because their Governing Body doesn’t present it to them that way. This may be because their Governing Body may not think of it this way either.
“But that doesn’t mean it isn’t the most important Scripture in their theology. This religion could not exist without the way they interpret this Scripture. Just as the Christian religion would not exist if Jesus is not God’s Son, the Watchtower religion would not exist if the Watchtower Society is not God’s organization.”
An example I use to support my contention has to do with why Jehovah Witnesses are so willing to change what they believe the moment the Governing Body changes what they are teaching. It is not because they believe that Jehovah is God. It is because they believe the Society is Jehovah’s organization, which is based on interpretation of Matthew 24:45-47.
The fact that ThirdWitness hasn’t figured this out yet doesn’t mean that I’m “perpetrating misleading falsehoods.” To me it simply means that he hasn’t figured this out yet.
Don
STRS.
You said, “Jesus didn’t appoint the Watchtower Society WITH his belongings.”
Verse 47 says that Jesus would appoint his faithful and discreet slave OVER his belongings.
He appointed his belongings to the faithful and discreet slave.”
That sounds OK.
You concluded, “So, in essence, it wouldn’t truly matter what the Society taught from its foundation but would matter in terms of the inspection from Christ’s PAROUSIA onward.”
And so you feel that what the Society had been teaching from when Jesus arrived to begin his parousia in 1914 to the end of his inspection in 1919 WOULD have mattered.
Since what they had been teaching from 1914 to 1919 was pretty much the same as they had been teaching from the Society’s foundation, then what difference would it have made to Jesus what period of time he examined (1879 to 1919 or 1914 to 1919)?
I guess it still comes down to whether or not Jesus would have been pleased enough with what they had been teaching so that he would have given them the appointment mentioned in verse 47.
Apparently it will take Divine intervention for us to be able to agree on that point.
Don